‘Rolling Stones’ writer Michael Hasting of Runaway General article musing suprise over McChrystal’s resignation. “I thought Gen. McChrystal was unfireable, that his position was secure. What is telling is that our story demonstrates this tense relationship between Pres. Obama and Gen. McChrystal and the way the WH responded confirms this. They could have swept it under the rug but they drove it… obviously McChrystal’s political opponents took advantage of this opportunity to relieve him of his command, though that’s just my speculation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/25/michael-hastings-rolling_n_625261.html
I didn’t think Obama would do it. Essentially the story calls him out for being weak and not having control of his Afghan policy. If he had let him stay, it would have confirmed this idea in the story. He had to prove that he was in control. I wasn’t sure that he was willing to do that. I was shocked that he was — not because I don’t think Obama is courageous, but because it involved some political drama… It was so fast, both right and left seemed to get together to call for his resignation. There was no one defending McChrystal.
Do you think it was the right decision?
Obviously, I have significant doubts about the [military] campaign anyway. The most important decision is not whether I think Obama made the right decision but whether his firing will satisfy the soldiers. Over here, soldiers were happy that he got fired. I’ve had a number of people come up to me, I got an email from Marine this morning [Thursday]: ‘Hey man, you did great work. All the guys in my company think it’s good McChrystal is not there because he was putting our lives at risk…
Petraeus is sort of a genius. He managed to turn what could have been catastrophic defeat in Iraq into a face-saving withdrawal. That’s his mission in Afghanistan, to make it look like we didn’t get run out. He’s a master at playing the game… the soldiers look up to him and respect him.
